Creating a commission to address an important issue pretty much solves the problem. They are "doing something". Piecemeal appointment of commission members maintains an illusion of progress. Whatever the commission produces by July 2024 will suffice for saying that the issue has been addressed. /sigh/ I was excited when I first heard about this commission. Now I need an Advil and a Famotidine.
In disgust, I wrote my senator, Mark Warner, to invite a question to the SASC Chair on when to expect a nom. I wrote in plain English... The response quoted me Article II, Section 2, on _ Executive Branch_ appointments, and how much he respected blah blah blah. Confirmed for me the Commission is DIW. And that staffers are just that vacuous.
On September 6th I submitted a question to my representative, Chrissy Houlahan (D PA6) -- a member of HASC -- why the Democrats hadn’t nominated candidates to serve on this commission. A staffer called me on the 27th to tell me he was researching the issue, but thus far hadn’t found a reason. He was going to continue to research the issue and would get back to me.
Rather odd that a Democrat wouldn’t know why her Democrat committee leader hadn’t submitted names.
And let's be honest, since St. Vladimir saved the Army budget, the idea of reform that would give more to the Navy, Marines, Air/Space Force and less to the Army is dead. Way more pleasant postings and junket spots in Europe compared to SE Asia.
I might argue that while RUS-UKR has certainly shone a bright light on the value in maintaining and modernizing an army, the potential flashpoints in the Indo-Pacific (Taiwan, free trade through the South China Sea) remind us (urgently) that we must give our naval forces (USN/USMC) careful thought -- that this commission remains unstaffed is dereliction of duty.
Creating a commission to address an important issue pretty much solves the problem. They are "doing something". Piecemeal appointment of commission members maintains an illusion of progress. Whatever the commission produces by July 2024 will suffice for saying that the issue has been addressed. /sigh/ I was excited when I first heard about this commission. Now I need an Advil and a Famotidine.
In disgust, I wrote my senator, Mark Warner, to invite a question to the SASC Chair on when to expect a nom. I wrote in plain English... The response quoted me Article II, Section 2, on _ Executive Branch_ appointments, and how much he respected blah blah blah. Confirmed for me the Commission is DIW. And that staffers are just that vacuous.
Yes, I fear you are right.
Typical baboons in congress.
On September 6th I submitted a question to my representative, Chrissy Houlahan (D PA6) -- a member of HASC -- why the Democrats hadn’t nominated candidates to serve on this commission. A staffer called me on the 27th to tell me he was researching the issue, but thus far hadn’t found a reason. He was going to continue to research the issue and would get back to me.
Rather odd that a Democrat wouldn’t know why her Democrat committee leader hadn’t submitted names.
Not naming names may be too civil in an uncivil time. But so is contempt of the law.
And let's be honest, since St. Vladimir saved the Army budget, the idea of reform that would give more to the Navy, Marines, Air/Space Force and less to the Army is dead. Way more pleasant postings and junket spots in Europe compared to SE Asia.
I might argue that while RUS-UKR has certainly shone a bright light on the value in maintaining and modernizing an army, the potential flashpoints in the Indo-Pacific (Taiwan, free trade through the South China Sea) remind us (urgently) that we must give our naval forces (USN/USMC) careful thought -- that this commission remains unstaffed is dereliction of duty.
Concur all. RUS-UKR has been a blessing to the Army budgeteers. Looks like it will remain so for the foreseeable future.